Central Information Commission
Sunil Parwani vs Department Of Posts on 3 March, 2021
Author: Uday Mahurkar
Bench: Uday Mahurkar
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/POSTS/A/2019/603421-UM
Mr. Sunil Parwani
....अपीलकर्ता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनतम
CPIO
O/o Postmaster General, Vadodara Region,
Vadodara - 390002, Gujarat
प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 01.03.2021
Date of Decision : 03.03.2021
Date of RTI application 16.11.2018
CPIO's response 18.12.2018
Date of the First Appeal 25.12.2018
First Appellate Authority's response 03.01.2019
Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission Nil
ORDER
FACTS The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 07 points as under:-
1. Please supply certified copy of all the correspondence made / received with / from all authorities in c/w this union letter.Page 1 of 5
2. Please supply certified copy of note sheets in c/w this union letter.
3. Please supply the certified copy of orders addressed to PMG Vadodara / SRM Vadodara for shifting of HSG-II unjustified post to needy mail office.
4. Please supply certified copy of whole file of the case dealt in circle office in Staff and Mails Section in c/w shifting of unjustified post of HSG-II AHRO Vadodara and incumbent working on it to NSH Surat.
5. Please supply certified copy of complete note-sheet in c/w 4 above.
6. Please intimate the reasons for non implementation of Hon'ble CPMG's order for shifting of official working on unjustified and redeployed post of HSG-II AHRO Vadodara to NSH Surat.
7. Please intimate when the orders of Hon'ble CPMG will be implemented for shifting of officials working on unjustified and redeployed post of HST-II AHRO Vadodara to NSH Surat.
The CPIO vide letter dated 18.12.2018 for point 03 requested the Appellant to deposit an amount of Rs. 40/- to get the information and for other points, transferred the application to the concerned CPIO. Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal. The FAA, vide order dated 03.01.2019, cautions the CPIO & Manager (BD) for not transferring the RTI application within 5 days. Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the Commission with a request to provide information.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Absent;
Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, AD(Postal Service) and CPIO through VC;
The Appellant remained absent during the hearing. Mr. Mitesh, Network Engineer NIC studio at Vadodara, confirmed the absence of the Appellant. The Respondent reiterated the chronological sequence of the event and submitted that the online RTI application of the Appellant was received by ADPS (Staff and Legal Cell), Ahmadabad, Gujarat which was then transferred to the Assistant Director (S&V), Vadodara on 20.11.2018 and subsequently, transferred to the Assistant Director (Mails), Vadodara on 27.11.2018, for further necessary action. The Respondent further submitted Page 2 of 5 for point no. 01 and 02 of the RTI application that the information sought pertained to one Union Letter dated 02.08.2018 and as the matters relating to Union are not dealt with by them, the application was transferred to the concerned CPIO for providing reply to the Appellant. On being queried by the Commission as to whether the reply on points 01 and 02 of the RTI application has been furnished to the Appellant by the concerned CPIOs, the Respondent feigned ignorance of the same and assured the Commission that the matter will be taken up with the concerned PIOs for providing information to the Appellant, as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005.
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent, O/o Postmaster General, Vadodara Region (Now South Gujarat Region) dated 25.02.2021 which is taken on record.
The Commission observed that it is the duty of the CPIO to provide clear, cogent and precise response to the information seeker. In the present instance the CPIO present during the hearing completely placed the onus for providing the information on the concerned CPIOs for points 01 and 02 of the RTI application. The Commission observed that the CPIO cannot be completely absolved of his duties and responsibilities by merely transferring the application. In this context, a reference can be made to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in J P Aggarwal v. Union of India (WP (C) no. 7232/2009 wherein it was held that:
" 7"it is the PIO to whom the application is submitted and it is who is responsible for ensuring that the information as sought is provided to the applicant within the statutory requirements of the Act. Section 5(4) is simply to strengthen the authority of the PIO within the department; if the PIO finds a default by those from whom he has sought information. The PIO is expected to recommend a remedial action to be taken". The RTI Act makes the PIO the pivot for enforcing the implementation of the Act."
8.............The PIO is expected to apply his / her mind, duly analyse the material before him / her and then either disclose the information sought or give grounds for non- disclosure."
Page 3 of 5The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Vivek Mittal v. B.P. Srivastava, W.P.(C) 19122/2006 dated 24.08.2009 had upheld the view of the CIC and observed ".....that a CPIO cannot escape his obligations and duties by stating that persons appointed under him had failed to collect documents and information. The Act as framed, castes obligation upon the CPIOs and fixes responsibility in case there is failure or delay in supply of information. It is the duty of the CPIOs to ensure that the provisions of the Act are fully complied with and in case of default, necessary consequences follow".
Furthermore, in Ministry Of Railways Through ... vs Girish Mittal on 12 September, 2014 W.P.(C) 6088/2014 & CM Nos.14799/2014, 14800/2014 & 14801/2014, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held as under:
"15. The plain language of Section 6(3) of the Act indicates that the public authority would transfer the application or such part of it to another public authority where the information sought is more closely connected with the functions of the other authority. The reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the provisions of Section 6(3) of the Act is clearly misplaced in the facts and circumstances of the case. This is not a case where penalty has been imposed with respect to queries which have been referred to another public authority, but with respect to queries that were to be addressed by the public authority of which petitioner no. 2 is a Public Information Officer. Section 6(3) of the Act cannot be read to mean that the responsibility of a CPIO is only limited to forwarding the applications to different departments/offices. Forwarding an application by a public authority to another public authority is not the same as a Public Information Officer of a public authority arranging or sourcing information from within its own organisation. In the present case, undisputedly, certain information which was not provided to respondent would be available with the Railway Board and the CPIO was required to furnish the same. He cannot escape his responsibility to provide the information by simply stating that the queries were forwarded to other officials."
A reference can also be made to a recent decision of the High Court of Delhi in the matter of Shikha Bagga Vs. Public Information Officer, Directorate of Education and Another's, in W. P. (C) 4172/2017 dated 13.07.2017 wherein it was held as under:
"4. Clearly, transferring the petitioner's application to various schools is unsustainable. The PIO is required to provide all such information as sought for, subject to the exceptions as provided under the Act Page 4 of 5
5. In the circumstances, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned letters/orders dated 18.04.2017 and 22.04.2017 transferring the petitioner's application to various officers and various schools are set aside. It is directed that the petitioner's application be considered by respondent no.1 in accordance with law"
The Appellant was not present to contest the submissions of the Respondent or to substantiate his claims further.
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the Respondent, the Commission directs the Respondent to furnish a suitable revised reply to the Appellant on points 01 and 02 of the RTI application after obtaining the information from the concerned PIOs, in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission, as agreed.
The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.
(Uday Mahurkar) (उिय माहूरकर) (Information Commissioner) (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाणित एवं सत्यापित प्रतत) (R. K. Rao) (आर.के. राव) (Dy. Registrar) (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26182598 / [email protected] दिनांक / Date: 03.03.2021 Page 5 of 5